Case Digest (G.R. No. 211833)
Facts:
Ferdinand R. Villanueva, Presiding Judge, MCTC, Compostela-New Bataan, Compostela Valley Province v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ferdinand R. Villanueva was appointed Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (first-level court) of Compostela–New Bataan on September 18, 2012. On September 27, 2013 he applied to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for vacant Regional Trial Court (second-level) judgeships: RTC Branch 31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City; and Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur.
By letter dated December 18, 2013 the JBC’s Office of Recruitment, Selection and Nomination informed petitioner that he was not included in the list of candidates for those vacancies; petitioner sought reconsideration the same day and protested inclusion of certain applicants. By letter dated February 3, 2014 the JBC Executive Officer advised that the JBC en banc had noted petitioner’s protest but upheld his exclusion pursuant to the JBC’s long-standing policy generally requiring at least five years’ service as a judge of a first-level court before one may be considered for promotion to a second-level court.
Petitioner filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court invoking Rules 65 and 63 (Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Certiorari, and Declaratory Relief) with a prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, contending that the JBC’s five‑year policy (1) added qualifications beyond the Constitution, (2) violated equal protection and due process, (3) contravened the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in employment, and (4) improperly ignored the prejudicature requirement under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8557. The Court required and received Comments from the JBC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) following its April 22, 2014 Resolution. The JBC and OSG argued among other points that certiorari and prohibition are tenable under the Court’s expanded jurisdiction but that mandamus and declaratory relief did not lie, and that the five‑year criterion bears a rational relation to JBC’s duty to assess proven competence and thus does not viol...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the special remedies invoked—certiorari and prohibition—tenable to challenge the JBC’s issuance and enforcement of its five‑year policy?
- Are mandamus and declaratory relief proper remedies to compel the JBC to include petitioner in the list of nominees or to obtain a declaration that he has a right to be included?
- Does the JBC policy requiring five years’ service as a first‑level judge before qualification for second‑level courts violate the Constitution (equal protection, due process, social justice/equal opportunity) or otherwise exceed the JBC’s authority?
- Did the JBC fail to implement the prejudicature requirement of Section 1...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)